Found this on another forum. I think it was posted from a member that is registered here also.

Max Bothwell, a research scientist for Environment Canada, who wrote an influential article that linked angler's felt soled boots to dydimo spread has now reversed himself and said that anglers are not responsible.

He now believes that dydimo has been in North American waters and that it is a change in water chemistry, specifically lower phosphorus levels that has caused dydimo blooms.

Read the article in the current issue of American Angler, July-August, 2013, pp 8-9.

"'I no longer believe the problem is North American streams is the result of it (dydimo) being moved around.' …. Scientists are now convinced that dydimo lives in many streams, but blooms only when the water has far less than the normal amount of phosphorus…… The most damaging dydimo episode in the US seems to have been on Rapid Creek in South dakota, where a six-mile bloom dramatically impacted a blue ribbon brown trout fishery. In 2007 and 2008, Bothwell and other scientists added phosphorus to sections of Rapid Creek. Sure enough, the dydimo mats shrank."

"There is no doubt that someone with rubber boots that are not clean poses a greater risk than someone with felt soles who has cleaned," Wiltshire says. "Cleaning is the most important thing for everyone."

It is just me or does it bother anyone else that because some "expert" has a theory and writes an article condemning the use of something without having thoroughly researched other potential causes, it resulted in unneeded, knee-jerk legislation (like we don't have enough of that already), and caused a bunch of responsible fisherman to have to fork out more of their hard-earned money, both of which had a negligible - if any - effect on the original issue?

It is just me or does it bother anyone else that because some "expert" has a theory and writes an article condemning the use of something without having thoroughly researched other potential causes, it resulted in unneeded, knee-jerk legislation (like we don't have enough of that already), and caused a bunch of responsible fisherman to have to fork out more of their hard-earned money, both of which had a negligible - if any - effect on the original issue?